10/17/2007
Larry Craig and Wife Tap Toes with Matt Lauer in First Interview
Here's a transcript of last night's Matt Lauer interview with Idaho Senator Larry Craig if you missed it, and a short clip.
The interview was, for the most part, a rehash of what we have already heard before from Craig, though this time the home fires were burning and Craig was surrounded by a defense wall of artfully-arranged family photos that filled the front of the frame in many camera shots, no doubt strategically placed to boost Craig's image as a devoted husband and father. Craig and his wife seemed poised, unshaken.
And Lauer's interview was a softball event. It seemed odd that in his 49 years, Lauer had never come across the term "cruising" before - "whatever that means". The gay "lifestyle" was referred to time and time again. Also annoying were the constant apologies with which he prefaced his questions.
Near the end, some fresh territory:
Matt Lauer: You have taken, senator, several opportunities to say, come out point blank and say, "I am not a homosexual."
Larry Craig: Uh-huh (affirm).
Matt Lauer: Which raises two questions in my mind. One of them, and you're going to have to forgive me for this, are you technically not a homosexual? Is it possible you're bisexual?
Larry Craig: It's no to both.
Matt Lauer: The other question is do you think it would be something that would be awful? In other words, do you view it as something that would be awful to have to admit that you were gay?
Larry Craig: I don't agree with the lifestyle. And I've said so by my votes over the years and by my expressions. Have I viewed it as awful? I viewed it as a lifestyle I don't agree with.
Matt Lauer: You wouldn't view it as one-- something that would be a source of great shame if you had to admit it?
Larry Craig: I'm not sure that I've ever looked at anyone else's sex life as great shame.
What is a shame is that no efforts were made to point out that the gay "lifestyle" to which they refer — the clandestine naughtiness in airport men's rooms — is an activity taken on, to my knowledge, by men who identify as straight. Being gay is an orientation, certainly not something that is chosen, which "lifestyle" of course implies. What is a choice is to not come clean about one's orientation. What is a choice is for a lawmaker to work feverishly for "family values" and against gay rights while engaging in homosexual liaisons in airport men's rooms.
Tom Shales at the Washington Post brings up some good points about this in his criticism of the interview:
"Craig himself brought up his voting record and said of homosexuality, 'I don't approve of the lifestyle.' Lauer should have followed up; why did he call it a 'lifestyle' and what about it does he disapprove of? At one point, reading from Craig's history, Lauer said the records included 'a guy who claims you 'cruised' him -- whatever that is.' This, it seemed, was Lauer's way of winking into the camera and saying, 'I'm not gay.' You hardly have to be gay in 21st-century America to know what the phrase 'cruising' means. It was even the title of a movie starring Al Pacino. Lauer needs to worry less about his own image and more about getting valuable information when conducting an interview. It seemed highly likely that Craig and his wife agreed to sit down with Lauer because they knew they had nothing, really, to fear."
Sen. Larry Craig's interview with Matt Lauer [msnbc]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 8:42 AM EST by Andy in Idaho, Larry Craig, Matt Lauer, News, Republican Party | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Andy-
So often on your posts I want to hear your perspective beyond just the facts of the stories from other sources. You are eloquent and informed and I appreciate your perspective.
Thank you for that.
Posted by: Nick | Oct 17, 2007 9:09:42 AM
Craig's a liar and Lauer's a putz.
Posted by: Michael W. | Oct 17, 2007 9:21:48 AM
That was a very frustrating interview to watch. We all know Craig is a liar but Matt was awful. Gay lifestyle? An activity that Gay men participate in? And he has never heard of cruising? Boy is he a media tool.
Posted by: davefromtampa | Oct 17, 2007 9:31:05 AM
Any sympathy I might have felt for Craig given his "generation" is totally gone. Fuck him right in the ear. I will enjoy watching him crash and burn and his heterosexual "lifestyle" go down with him.
Posted by: nuflux | Oct 17, 2007 9:32:38 AM
Matt has made it in the journalistic world and really doesn't have to ask the "hard" questions anymore, hence covering his ass.
He is actually enabling Craig to cover his ass by prefacing his questions in the manner he did.
It was a bum arrest, the police in Mpls. always operate in this manner and people let them get by with it. The only good that will come out of this is that perhaps they will have to change their strategy now and stop these entrapment techniques.
Obviously something happened in the stall. I would guess that Craig indeed wanted something sexual to happen and he got careless because their was a younger man (p/officer) involved. However to arrest someone without any touching, exposing, or any sexual contact at all verbally or otherwise is just wrong. If you are going to rely on actions then you need to be filming the situation.
I do hope that Craig is finished in the political arena, his voting record is one of shame and if he is gay/bi it is one of betrayal.
Posted by: bob | Oct 17, 2007 9:35:10 AM
Anyone wanna place bets as to whether O'Leilly will trot out his "body language expert" to review the tape?
Posted by: Scott | Oct 17, 2007 9:36:10 AM
Sorry, bad spelling in my post, not enough coffee!!
Posted by: bob | Oct 17, 2007 9:37:54 AM
Please people, do you really think it is ONLY closeted, "straight" men who cruise restrooms?
Posted by: loiu | Oct 17, 2007 9:42:04 AM
I believe the Senator and I don't trust that cop or the supposed "sting".(not for a second)
Posted by: Davey | Oct 17, 2007 9:43:39 AM
I agree that the phrase "the gay lifestyle" is one of the stupidest ever invented, and Lauer should have pressed Craig as to what exactly is supposed to be MEANT by that.
But I'm with Loiu on his/her post above - I don't believe it's only straight-identified men who cruise restrooms. George Michael may not have been out to the public when he was arrested in 1998, but he was out to family and friends, had a boyfriend, and was certainly gay-identified in his own mind. Didn't stop him from doing it.
Posted by: Lucy | Oct 17, 2007 9:57:21 AM
This interview - which I saw in its entirety was farcical. When Lauer said "cruising whatever that means" I nearly fell off my ottoman.
And the incessant repetiion of the word "lifestyle" was purposely used to deflect attention from Craig's full knowledge of "the drill" when picking up guys in that bathroom.
What became glaring apparent in an over-all sense from that interview is the uncomfortable truth that we live in a society which will do ANYTHING to distance itself from the decent folks who are gay. I was offended by both the Craigs and Lauer of a very core level.
The only thing in the recent past which has offended me more is Elizabeth Vargas' reviewing of the Matthew Shepherd murder several years ago on 20/20.
Posted by: NOMOREGUNS | Oct 17, 2007 10:06:34 AM
Davey, if you believe the Senator and don't trust the cop, why then did Craig plead guilty? It looks to me like if he was innocent, he would have had a team of lawyers meet him at the police station. He thought it would blow over calmly by pleading guilty? Please!
Posted by: Michael W. | Oct 17, 2007 10:08:11 AM
People.... Wake up. The television is a tool of the mega-corporations/government. You will ALWAYS hear only what 'they'
want you to hear. Do you think a senator would do a televised interview that he had no control over? Please, don't be so naive. This interview was contrived to put the innocent, family-values-faced Craig in from on as many Americans as possibe so he can go on with his senator job with a clean slate ie "What are you talking about? Didn't you see me on TV saying I was innocent? I was set-up! It was on TV, so it's true!"
Posted by: HeyBudBoston | Oct 17, 2007 10:18:26 AM
Ew, Lauer was such a pansy.
I was surprised. With how aggressively he took on Ann Coulter and Tom Cruise, he totally seemed to tiptoe around this one. Maybe he feared giving Larry Craig a heart attack?
The only straight newscaster I've seen that does the gay "lifestyle" any justice is Jon Stewart. He is the only one that gives homosexuality the proper respect. I would have LOVED to see Craig vs Stewart.
Matt Lauer should go play in a woodchipper.
Posted by: David | Oct 17, 2007 10:21:30 AM
I live a "gay lifestlye" and I have no idea what any of these foot taps and hand symbols mean. None of my friends knew either. If we, as out homosexuals, wanted to meet someone for sex or otherwise, we'd go to a gay establishment, like a bar, and offer to buy him a drink.
Matt Lauer pissed me off in his reporting as much as I have been pissed off by a journalist since Elizabeth Vargas interviewed the two boys who killed Matthew Sheppard.
Posted by: Dan B | Oct 17, 2007 10:21:58 AM
I'm gay. Been out since I was 17. I'm 41 now. I knew people cruised bathrooms, but I'd never heard of the top tapping, signals or any of that. I guess I'm sheltered. However, Matt Lauer has disappointed me completely, but maybe he felt he needs to hide something too.
Posted by: Bobby | Oct 17, 2007 10:33:51 AM
I know several gay men, most of them older, who have cruised or still cruise restrooms. So, no it is not just a "straight identified" activity. And I don't think it does us any service to pretend that NO gay people do this.
The gay community is very broad, and as far as sexual ethics go, it includes people of many different backgrounds. Let's be honest about this, so we can discuss the issue truthfully.
Craig is a liar through and through. That is not going to change. And, honestly, at this point I would rather he NEVER come out. Let the straights have him.
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 17, 2007 10:34:52 AM
Craig complaining about the hurricane of media coverage was rich. Remember when he went on the Sunday morning talk shows and chastised Clinton for being very very naughty. Sit and spin, Craig. Karma got you.
Posted by: Emmy | Oct 17, 2007 10:46:17 AM
This interviews by celebrities reporters are always for promoting reasons. I got rid of my Tele because of all these bs...worthless.
"lifestyle" its an annoying word, just as much as "partners"...
ciao
Posted by: Bosie | Oct 17, 2007 10:47:06 AM
WOW! What a joke! This man truly hates himself, Matt refused to ask the hard questions and his wife sat there, with that blank look on her face just like Dina Matos McGreevey!
It truly is unfortunate that people like Craig are so in denial, live their whole lives unhappy and try to publically fight against the very thing they are.
Posted by: RB | Oct 17, 2007 10:59:35 AM
I liked what he was getting towards, but I wished he asked more directly: "If you were a homosexual, would you be honest about it?" It's clear the answer to that is "No"
Posted by: rdm | Oct 17, 2007 11:15:54 AM
I liked what he was getting towards, but I wished he asked more directly: "If you were a homosexual, would you be honest about it?" It's clear the answer to that is "No"
Posted by: rdm | Oct 17, 2007 11:16:07 AM
Craig is Craig. You can't make a silk purse out of a fascist's ear. But Lauer, whom I've seriously always thought chopped his hair off the moment he heard how many gay men were attracted to him with his longer, Stepford TV talking head hair, works for a corporation using the PUBLIC airwaves. That means, in theory, but infuriatingly no longer in practice, that they belong to you and me, every American citizen, and that we should have a say in what occurs on them.
In fact, this is far from Lauer's first or worst homophobic performance. In October of 2001, while NBC was still ignoring the number of out gays killed or affected by 9/11, including that Flight 93 hero Mark Bingham was proudly gay, Lauer interviewed yet another biographer of Hitler, preceding it with this teaser:
"There have been 120,000 books, give or take a few, written about Adolf Hitler since his death. The newest one claims that Hitler was actually gay, and that his homosexuality was at the root of his evil."
Which brings me to SAAD which is what the once great organization GLAAD became long ago. They take millions of dollars a year from gullible LGBTs to monitor and correct, even prevent preemptively the homophobic drool running out of the mouths of people like Lauer. He's probably even been to one of their pre annual convention cocktail parties that feature mainstream media stars or monthly, er, annual award cluster fucks.
They filed protests, read launched a paper airplane, at the time of Lauer's interview with the Hitler Was A Homo author, maybe even have whined about other missteps. So why is Lauer so clueless six years later? GLAAD publishes a printed media guide to neutral language about LGBTs. Have they ever sent Lauer a copy? Have they ever demanded that he and every other national media star and their producers attend what we used to call sensitivity training?
I doubt it. They're too busy rimming them and offering them 12-packs of Coors to put in their limos. No one with power in Media actually respects or fears them. I'm very pleased to see others referring to the 20/20 smear of Matthew Shepard by Esleazebeth Vargas. Are you also aware that apparently GLAAD found out about it only a couple of days before it aired. That ABC refused to let them review it ahead of time which is accepted practice between networks and major advocacy groups for such controversial programs. Vargas insisted homophobia had nothing to do with Shepard's murder while at the same time throwing in that he had angered them by making a pass at them—which both murderers had already denied. Judy Shepard's lengthy taped interview, and that of Laramie's chief investigator of the murder, both disputing Vargas outrageous premise, were reduced to a couple of impotent minutes.
So GLAAD was caught with their pants down and their asses in the air when someone smuggled them a copy of the program before it aired; too late to do anything to effectively counteract its propaganda. I read letters in gay papers on both coasts from younger gays who believed Vargas' lies asking, "Why is Matthew a hero?"
Given that America has been told with the help of Lauer that Hitler murdered millions because he was gay; that we choose to be gay so we pursue sex in public restrooms and something from a distant planet known as "crusing," and directly by another network that Matthew Shepard caused his own murder and both Lauer and Vargas are still working, we can't do much but we can:
BOYCOTT GLAAD!
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 17, 2007 11:37:42 AM
Honestly, I don't know who disgusted me more in that interview; Craig or Lauer.
Craig is an ignorant offensive homophobe because he's deep in the closet. Lauer played ignorant and was offensive because he's a tool.
I think they are both disgusting.
It's amazing how the realization that a person like Lauer (who I once thought was MAD hot) is a complete ass makes him completely unattractive to me in 2.2 seconds.
Posted by: Zeke | Oct 17, 2007 11:59:09 AM
I too used to like Matt, but now find him intolerable. I don't understand how he continues to get the big interviews, but love how he always kisses up to Madonna, and how she casually dismisses him like he is totally nothing to her (like she does everyone).
I only saw a bit of that interview, but thought how tragic it was how naive and pathetic his wife is, but like so many wives of men like him, somehow even if she caught him in the act, I'm sure he would try to convince her they were just conducting physicals on each other or something ridiculous.
I couldn't imagine anyone actually believing him, but since there are people that buy the crap that George W. says, I'm sure there are.
Posted by: Jordan | Oct 17, 2007 12:29:51 PM